The most obvious thing about the Supreme Court’s decision to stay a Louisiana law that would have shuttered two of the state’s three remaining abortion clinics is that it was Chief Justice John Roberts who stopped that from happening. Roberts joined the court’s four more liberal justices to deliver a 5-4 majority that maintains the status quo, for now, and keeps the clinics open.

What is perhaps less obvious, at least at first glance, is the level of intellectual dishonesty baked into a four-page dissent penned by the court’s newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh.

When Judges Defy the Supreme Court
The chief justice faces a time of great testing, both of himself and of the institution he heads, as the lower courts move rapidly even to his right.
Linda Greenhouse

By Linda Greenhouse, Contributing Opinion Writer
Feb. 14, 2019

No, I wasn’t surprised last week, as most people apparently were, when Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding fifth vote to preserve access to abortion in Louisiana for at least a little while longer. In fact, I had predicted it (and I have witnesses).

Why? Not because I think the chief justice has developed a soft spot in his heart for the right to abortion. He has not. Not because he wants to minimize the Supreme Court’s role as a combatant in the culture wars. I think he does, but that’s not the point.

Rather, circumstances compelled the chief justice to stand up to a stunning act of judicial defiance.

The Supreme Court last week suspended a Louisiana abortion law, the justices' first significant action in an abortion case since the appointment of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. What does the decision portend for the future of Roe v. Wade in particular and reproductive rights in general?

The case, June Medical Services v. Gee, centers on a challenge to a provision in the Louisiana law (named, tellingly, “the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act”) requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of the clinic where they perform abortions. The ostensible idea is to have quick access to a hospital in the event something goes awry, threatening the health of the mother. Critics argued that the effect of the law would be to reduce to one (from the current four) the number of doctors who can perform abortions at the state’s three operating clinics.

There are about 4.6 million people in Louisiana. Guess how many abortion clinics there are? Three. There are just three. Which I suppose is actually quite a lot when you consider that a number of American states have only one.

On Thursday Louisiana narrowly avoided becoming a new member of the one-clinic club. The US supreme court voted 5-4 to block a Louisiana law that would have dramatically reduced access to legal abortions in the state. Opponents of the law said it would have meant only one doctor would have been eligible to perform abortions in the entire state.

For years, the right has treated the Supreme Court as the ultimate consideration when strategizing about presidential and even congressional politics, a prize worth doing anything to seize, whether it’s rallying around candidates whom it has misgivings about or finding repugnant and indefensible procedural maneuvers, such as refusing to consider an appointee simply because he was nominated by a president of the other party.

Democrats, on the other hand, have thought of control of the court as only one goal among many — important, sure, but not much more important than whether we can achieve health-care reform or a higher minimum wage, and certainly not worth setting aside concerns about procedural fairness.

Just 20 months ago, Leonard Leo’s life’s work appeared in jeopardy. Hillary Clinton would soon be elected president. A liberal judge would be chosen to replace Antonin Scalia, the late lodestar of American conservatism, on the supreme court.

“Staring at that vacancy, fear permeated every day in that countdown to November 8,” Leo recalled last year, in a speech to fellow religious conservatives. His three-decade fight to push the US judiciary to the right – and enable a crackdown on abortion – looked to be lost.

10 legal experts on the future of Roe v. Wade after Kennedy
His decision to retire could lead to more “incremental” attacks against the landmark decision.
By Li Zhouli
Jul 2, 2018

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement announcement has spurred a raft of questions about how key legal precedents could shift under the tenure of a likely more conservative replacement — and chief among these is the fate of Roe v. Wade.

The landmark 1973 case that guaranteed women’s legal right to an abortion has been on conservatives’ target list for some time, and although Kennedy was appointed by a Republican president, he frequently sided with the liberal wing of the court and acted as a swing vote on cases preserving abortion rights.

As a candidate, Donald Trump promised to appoint justices who would overrule Roe v. Wade, and the actions of his administration confirm his hostility. With Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s retirement, we are now at the moment of reckoning.

The court of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. could reject Roe quickly and openly, allowing states to ban abortion at any point during pregnancy and to punish doctors and even their patients — as Mr. Trump discussed on the campaign trail. Some states like Iowa have already enacted laws banning early abortion to put test cases in the judicial pipeline.

Justice Kennedy, the pivotal swing vote on the Supreme Court, announces his retirement
What Justice Kennedy's retirement means for the Supreme Court

by Robert Barnes June 27, 2018

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced Wednesday that he is retiring from the Supreme Court, a move that will give President Trump a chance to replace the pivotal justice and solidify a more conservative majority on the court that plays a crucial role in American life.

“It has been the greatest honor and privilege to serve our nation in the federal judiciary for 43 years, 30 of those years on the Supreme Court,” Kennedy, 81, said in a statement released in the afternoon of the last day of the term. He said his final day will be July 31.